Quote:4) Philosophies and information which exhibit elements of deception, manipulative thinking, generate fear, reject or discourage universal love, and encourage or promote control of self or others – are considered to be not in alignment with the principles of spiritual evolution espoused by Confederation sources and are thus subject to moderation and/or removal.

isn't Hidden Hand by own admission this?
&
can someone get banned for expressing opinions and philosophies that u mods deem "not in alignment"?

I haven't been here that long, but I don't think I've ever seen the mods stepping into threads to enforce that rule, even ones where many people would likely think there's a strong fear\control bias. I've seen a few people who claim to be STS, or at least tending that way, and they seem to be treated just like everyone else as long as they can still interact politely.

I suspect that rule is there mostly for rare extreme cases that someone becomes outright abusive.

Otherwise, as you seem to suggest, such a rule against control systems could very easy become a control system of its own. One part of the Positive path, as I see it, is coming to tolerate the existence of the Negative types and looking for ways to work with\around them, rather than against them. Censorship is, itself, a somewhat negative action, even if the realities of Earthly existence sometimes make it the least-negative option in an unfortunate circumstance. So it's probably best avoided in an environment that's striving for Positivity.

(After all, positive polarization must be a choice made of free will, not coercion.)

the reason i ask is because *someone* refused to tell me their political views out of fear of punishment. i went to look and imo guideline #5 is what might have caused this fear. in case of any possible misunderstandings here i'd like a mod to clarify if it's actually against the rules to share political or other views if they're what mods deem STS or controlling.

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]the reason i ask is because *someone* refused to tell me their political views out of fear of punishment. i went to look and imo guideline #5 is what might have caused this fear.

We are responsible for how we interpret things Bluebell, thus it is not the clear and transparent guidelines that are the cause, but more the interpretation of them. How we interpret things is the culmination of our own experiences, upbringing, general enculturation. They also point to which of our energy centres could do with some attention, if we were to take metasphysical studies as valid and beneficial. The guidelines are clear and set because it categorically aserts that spiritual awareness is valid and beneficial. I don't think it is about what is discussed, but how the discussion is expressed.

For what it is worth Bluebell I have had 2 posts deleted, and although I will admit openly to what I expressed at the time, I am still grateful that they were taken down.

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]the reason i ask is because *someone* refused to tell me their political views out of fear of punishment. i went to look and imo guideline #5 is what might have caused this fear.

We are responsible for how we interpret things Bluebell, thus it is not the clear and transparent guidelines that are the cause, but more the interpretation of them. How we interpret things is the culmination of our own experiences, upbringing, general enculturation. They also point to which of our energy centres could do with some attention, if we were to take metasphysical studies as valid and beneficial. The guidelines are clear and set because it categorically aserts that spiritual awareness is valid and beneficial. I don't think it is about what is discussed, but how the discussion is expressed.

For what it is worth Bluebell I have had 2 posts deleted, and although I will admit openly to what I expressed at the time, I am still grateful that they were taken down.

doesn't mean there's something wrong w a person's energy centers
i think i should ask if i'm not clear on a rule. how else can i obey it? jeeze nicholas. noone asked to be psychoanalyzed! i think ur misunderstanding me. y ru judging my totally valid question??????????? i'm doing this to show *someone* that they've misinterpreted a rule. but everyone but the mods have replied.

the reason i ask is because *someone* refused to tell me their political views out of fear of punishment. i went to look and imo guideline #5 is what might have caused this fear. in case of any possible misunderstandings here i'd like a mod to clarify if it's actually against the rules to share political or other views if they're what mods deem STS or controlling.

If I were to openly say what I believe and to link to the website that I've been looking at, it would be so easy to cherry pick all the bad things and not see the good. I wouldn't be surprised if the good majority of people here on Bring 4th would be against me for saying any of that. They would be completely wrong, but it's just human nature. To be very honest Bluebell, I wouldn't be surprised if even you would be against me. It has to do with some severe brainwashing that society has gone through in the last century.

But, in a nutshell, the dictatorship that I believe in goes against tribalism (it's all about us rather than them, for example) and is about honor. Like I said before, the nuances are the difficult part.

And I also believe that a serious reworking of the guidelines has to be put in play for something like what I believe to be accepted here.

can u at least PM me? i'm not against benevolent dictatorship in fact i've often argued for it. i'm just really curious about this. i don't believe in democracy but it's what we have. that doesn't mean it's the best system so everyone should speak up.

(07-09-2015, 05:32 PM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]can u at least PM me? i'm not against benevolent dictatorship in fact i've often argued for it. i'm just really curious about this. i don't believe in democracy but it's what we have. that doesn't mean it's the best system so everyone should speak up.

APeacefulWarrior is basically correct. To respond specifically to the question about the Hidden Hand material, we wouldn't shut down discussion about the paths or concepts highlighted in that guideline, unless such information was being shared with the clear intent to support and use deception, manipulation, fear-based thinking, etc. It is possible to discuss materials and philosophies which exhibit this in an objective fashion, within reason and balance. Simply put, Bring4th is not intended as a platform for someone to promote or explicate on such philosophies. As APW pointed out, some people have even claimed to be upon the negative path. It is not grounds for banning on its own.

There are some related guidelines that might be relevant for the discussion.

Quote:5) Members who selfishly use the forum’s common resources without regard for its members' shared interests may be unsubscribed. This includes those who insist on promoting / showcasing themselves, their own websites, philosophies, products, services or other unrelated teachings.

This guideline is really only relevant in extreme cases. Simply sharing a belief or philosophy wouldn't cross this line. This guideline is in order to prevent a member using the general forum solely as a platform for self-promotion - either philosophies, products, or otherwise.

Quote:6) Discussions that promote or endorse racial / sexual / national intolerance, hate speech, politically subversive acts or planning, will not be tolerated.

This is the closest someone could come to crossing the line simply for expressing opinions or philosophies. We have had to ask members to refrain from expressing their personal opinions and philosophies that we felt promoted intolerance. It's fine to discuss racism, homophobia, or other forms of intolerance, but hopefully the reason we cannot allow the endorsement of these ideals on Bring4th is obvious.

The first part of my post is in response to your OP, about guideline 4. I only brought up guidelines 5 or 6 because they are relevant to the idea of someone feeling they might get in trouble for sharing their opinion.

The first part of my post is in response to your OP, about guideline 4. I only brought up guidelines 5 or 6 because they are relevant to the idea of someone feeling they might get in trouble for sharing their opinion.

i was initially going to include them but i dismissed them as pretty clear. it's only #4 that i see might confuse. oh well. i don't think *someone* is going to be convinced it's ok to share his views. but thanks for responding.

(07-09-2015, 04:36 PM)Nicholas Wrote: [ -> ]One thing that I am confused over though is why the emotionally manipulative memes on the vaccine and conspiracy thread are aloud to remain. I suppose they are deemed helpful and productive

Well, if you read the first couple pages of the conspiracy thread, a lot of various folks here expressed in various ways why we did not believe it was helpful to take such things so seriously. So at least that material remains, for newcomers. Otherwise, from what I've seen -not that I've been in it for awhile- it's just turned into a handful of users having fun scaring themselves.

And, well, if they have a single thread devoted to that and aren't spamming their memes in other threads, its probably not doing too much harm.

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]the reason i ask is because *someone* refused to tell me their political views out of fear of punishment. i went to look and imo guideline #5 is what might have caused this fear.

We are responsible for how we interpret things Bluebell, thus it is not the clear and transparent guidelines that are the cause, but more the interpretation of them. How we interpret things is the culmination of our own experiences, upbringing, general enculturation. They also point to which of our energy centres could do with some attention, if we were to take metasphysical studies as valid and beneficial. The guidelines are clear and set because it categorically aserts that spiritual awareness is valid and beneficial. I don't think it is about what is discussed, but how the discussion is expressed.

For what it is worth Bluebell I have had 2 posts deleted, and although I will admit openly to what I expressed at the time, I am still grateful that they were taken down.

doesn't mean there's something wrong w a person's energy centers

Of course there is nothing wrong with them! My point is why do we interpret things the way we do? Why do we react in a certain way? Why do care for others more than we care for ourselves?

When I use the word "we" I am also asking myself the same questions.

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]i think i should ask if i'm not clear on a rule. how else can i obey it?

They are not rules, they are guidelines. Neither are you obliged to obey them, more it is a request that they are to be respected.

I am not judging your perfectly valid question. I am questioning your interpretation that the guidelines cause "fear". I think there are semantic issues here and I am trying to dig myself out of this hole!

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]i'm doing this to show *someone* that they've misinterpreted a rule. but everyone but the mods have replied.

(07-09-2015, 06:34 AM)Bluebell Wrote: [ -> ]WHY IS EVERYONE ON THIS SITE TELLING OTHER PEOPLE WHAT'S WRONG WITH THEM WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION OR CONSENT OR ANY ACTUAL INSIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Probably for the exact same reason that you are providing a voice for that *someone* that fears expressing themselves. Again there is nothing actually "wrong" with anyone here. I know, paradoxes suck